Jaeah Lee

Reporter

Jaeah reports, writes, codes, and charts at Mother Jones. Her writings have appeared in The Atlantic, the Guardian, Wired, Christian Science Monitor,Global Post,Huffington Post,Talking Points Memo, and Grist. She was a 2013-14 Middlebury fellow in environmental journalism. Her work has been named a finalist in the Data Journalism Awards. In a former life, she researched and wrote about China at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Which state will dominate in this tournament of lady-haters?

Despite being Women's History Month, March has seen relentless attacks on ladies' rights. As soon as one state passes some outrageous woman-restricting bill, another is right behind with something even, well, outrageous-er.The "state-by-state race to the bottom on women's health," as the president of Planned Parenthood put it, inspired us to set up our own March Madness bracket to determine the national champion in the War on Women.

ROUND ONE: THE MEAN SIXTEEN

No doubt about it, these states all brought their A games to this season's War on Women. From imposing onerous new building codes on abortion clinics to threatening to throw doctors in jail for providing life-saving abortions, these contenders made it all but impossible for women to obtain (still constitutionally protected) abortions. The qualifiers:

The Matchups

Louisiana (1) vs. Arkansas (16)

Louisiana barrels into the tournament as top-seed in its region and the expected overall champion, since the anti-choice crusaders Americans United for Life crowned it the "Most Pro-Life State" earlier this year. The state enacted a 20-week ban last June, with fines and prison sentences for doctors who violate it.

Plucky underdog Arkansas passed a new law banning all abortions after 20 weeks earlier this month, shooting over the veto of the state's Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe. But that wasn't enough for legislators, who followed with a 12-week ban days later, also over Beebe's veto.

Oklahoma (8) vs. Texas (9)

Oklahoma brings a middling offense: Women there must undergo state-required anti-abortion counseling, can't use their private health insurance to pay for elective abortions, and can't get an abortion after 20 weeks.

Meanwhile, have you seen what Texas did to Planned Parenthood? That's on top of an ultra-strict ultrasound law and mandatory 24-hour waiting period for an abortion. Gov. Rick Perry kicked off 2013 with a pledge to "continue to pass laws to ensure that [abortions] are as rare as possible." Perry is basically the John Wooden of anti-woman madness.

Utah (5) vs. Idaho (12)

Utah passed a new law last year establishing a 72-hour waiting period for an abortion. The state also bans women from using private health insurance to cover an abortion, unless her life is at risk or if she's the victim of rape or incest.

Back in 2011, Idaho passed a ban on abortions occurring 20 weeks post-conception, which a judge struck down as unconstitutional on March 7. Women here also have to wait 24 hours before they can have an abortion and can't use their private insurance for elective abortions.

Arizona (4) vs.Colorado (13)

Last year, Arizona became the sixth state to pass a 20-week abortion ban. But its law was even more extreme, as it actually cuts off access 18 weeks post-conception. (Basically, they start the shot clock before women even gain possession.) This state also passed a law last year making it legal for doctors to withhold medical information that might encourage a patient to seek an abortion, like fetal abnormalities.

Colorado voters get bad marks (in the logic of the War on Women) for twice rejecting a so-called "personhood" ballot measure that would grant the rights of adult humans to fertilized eggs, in 2008 and 2010. But anti-choice lawmakers have continued trying to ban all abortions with a House bill that stalled in committee, and Garfield County also voted to defund its local Planned Parenthood provider.

Mississippi (3) vs. Tennessee (14)
Mississippi is down to one abortion clinic, and anti-choice crusaders are taking aim. Even though voters rejected a "personhood" ballot measure in 2011, abortion foes and their up-tempo offense are trying to get it on the ballot yet again.

Tennessee is an up-and-comer to watch in future seasons. Right now it has more liberal abortion laws than many Southern states, but in 2014, voters will decidevia a ballot measure whether or not women have the right to an abortion. Meanwhile, anti-abortion officials have been active at the county level, defunding the Memphis chapter of Planned Parenthood in 2011.

Virginia (6) vs. Alabama (11)

Under public pressure last year, Virginia lawmakers backpedaled from forcing women to undergo medically unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds. But the state is moving forward with strict new building codes for clinics that could put a number of providers on the bench—and out of business.

Last month, the Alabama House advanced the Orwellian "Women's Health and Safety Act," which threatens to shut down the state's five remaining clinics. It includes a requirement that doctors have admitting privileges at a local hospital and sets tough new building codes for clinics.

South Dakota (7) vs. Michigan (10)

There is only one abortion clinic in South Dakota, which many women drive hours to reach. To get an abortion, women have to visit a doctor first, wait 72 hours, visit an anti-abortion "crisis pregnancy center," and listen to a mandated script that will tell them false information about abortion risks. Now yet another law, passed on February 28, excludes weekends and holidays from the 72-hour waiting period, meaning some women will have to wait five or six days. This state has one of the toughest defenses in the country: a legal-defense fund wholly devoted to preserving these anti-choice laws.

Michigan got a lot of attention last year when Democratic Rep. Lisa Brown was T-ed up and barred from using the word "vagina" during floor debate over an anti-abortion bill. The state later passed its "abortion mega-bill" requiring abortion providers to meet the same standards as "ambulatory surgical centers," outlawing telemed abortions, and implementing new rules for the disposal of fetal remains that would require them to be treated like the body of a dead person, rather than treating them like other forms of medical waste.

Kansas (2) vs. North Dakota (15)

A perennial favorite in Anti-Woman Madness, abortion foes in second-seeded Kansas have committed to making it the first "abortion-free state." In 2011, the state passed onerous clinic regulations that threatened to close nearly every clinic in the state. They were later were blocked by a judge, but the legal fight continues. Meanwhile, the state House is currently considering a group of measures that would define life as beginning at conception and would require doctors to give patients medically inaccurate information linking abortion to breast cancer. Lawmakers did, however, remove a provision that would ban anyone who works at an abortion clinic from volunteering at their kids' schools.

North Dakota's Legislature only meets every other year, so 2013 has been a rebuilding year. They have managed to make quite a comeback in 2013, banning abortion as early as six weeks. Anti-abortion lawmakers also pitched a fit earlier this year about a sex-ed program for teenagers that Planned Parenthood was going to help lead.

ROUND TWO: THE INFAMOUS EIGHT

Arkansas (16) beats Louisiana (1) (!)A stunning upset! Louisiana may have been the top seed, but then Gov. Bobby Jindal came out last December in favor of over-the-counter access to oral contraception, knee-capping Louisiana's race to Worst State for Women. Meanwhile, Arkansas' offense has been all over the place, even managing to go backdoor on Gov. Mike Beebe's veto of their 12- and 20-week abortion bans, leading Arkansas to a shocking victory. Nobody saw this coming…but many will pay consequences.

Texas (9) beats Oklahoma (8)Texas has been chucking up three-pointers from deep all season, which allowed them to cruise to an easy victory over Oklahoma.

Utah (5) beats Idaho (12)This was a tough match up, as the two states look pretty similar on paper. Utah eked out a win, though, since the court called a technical foul on Idaho's 20-week ban.

​Arizona (4) beats Colorado (13)
Colorado looked lackluster next to Arizona, which cruised to an easy victory. I mean, starting the shot clock on abortion before a woman even conceives? That's serious game, Arizona.

Mississippi (3) beats Tennessee (14)
Tennessee didn't seem to even leave the locker room for this one. But then again, Mississippi's rare status as a state with just one abortion clinic spelled victory from the start.

Virginia (6) beats Alabama (11)
Virginia, led by point guard (and attorney general) Ken Cuccinelli, has really been making a name for itself this season. No surprise here.

South Dakota (7) beats Michigan (10)
Michigan has shown some impressive ballhandling in the past year, demonstrating all kinds of new anti-abortion plays, but South Dakota's measure banning women from thinking on the weekend was the kind of gritty performance that wins championships.

North Dakota (15) beats Kansas (2) (!!)
Another jaw-dropping upset! Let's face it, North Dakota wouldn't have even qualified last year. But they've been running a full-court press with their time restrictions on abortion this season, and it lead to a shocking victory over second-seeded Kansas. Hey, it's called Madness for a reason.

ROUND THREE: THE FINAL FOUR

Arkansas (16) vs. Texas (9)

​This was a nail-biter. The score was tied with seconds left on the clock, but Arkansas drained two free throws with its 12- and 20-week bans to seal the win.

Arizona (4) vs. Utah (5)

Demonstrating some of their creative plays developed over the past season, Arizona cruised to an easy victory over Utah, which seems to have grown complacent this season with few new abortion restrictions.

Mississippi (3) vs. Virginia (6)Virginia's transvaginal probes couldn't hold up to Mississippi's run-and-gun offense, which has included "personhood" measures and regulatory attempts to wipe out its sole abortion provider.

North Dakota (15) vs. South Dakota (7)
The Dakotas matchup was sure to be a tough one. While South Dakota took an early lead with its waiting-period law, North Dakota broke out its stingy man-to-man defense with its six-week ban, clinching the Midwest Madness title.

ROUND FOUR: The CHAMPIONSHIP!​

Arizona (4) vs. Arkansas (16)
Underdog Arkansas was all over the boards with its now-infamous governor-silencing offense, while Arizona just seemed distracted.

North Dakota (15) vs. Mississippi (3)
Given that both of these states are down to one abortion provider, this was expected to be a tight one. But North Dakota showed some real zeal for hating on women with their most recent legislative ball work banning abortions as early as six weeks, and that's what it took to regress—er, advance—in the march to victory.

THE "WINNER"!

It seems nothing short of an all-out ban on abortion could have topped North Dakota's late-breaking offensive, just passed on March 15: cutting off abortion access as early as six weeks after conception. Many women won't even know they're pregnant within that timeframe, but North Dakota just won't relent: The state is still pushing for that ever-elusive (because, you know, abortion is a constitutional right and all) statewide ban. North Dakota has proven that it's willing to go the extra mile to win the dubious distinction of Worst State for Women.

Thanks for playing along, and remember: whenever these states win, women lose.

An earlier version of this piece incorrectly stated that Arizona, not Arkansas, advanced to the championship.

Dozens of clinics have shut down in Texas, leaving nearly 200,000 women in search of affordable health care.

In the past two years, Texas legislators slashed funds for family planning and passed up $30 million a year in federal Medicaid money, largely to squeeze Planned Parenthood out of the state's women's health programs. Last week, hundreds gathered at the south steps of the Texas State Capitol in Austin to protest the resulting public health mess: Researchers say nearly 200,000 Texas women have lost or could lose access to contraception, cancer screenings, and basic preventive care, especially in low-income, rural parts of the state. I reported from the rally:

Given that anti-choice legislators in other states could draw inspiration from Texas's "winning" strategy to defund Planned Parenthood—several have tried and failed in recent years—it's worth surveying the damage.

About a year after Texas slashed its family-planning budget by two-thirds, with 50 clinics shutting down as a result, the Texas Policy Evaluation Project surveyed 300 pregnant women seeking an abortion in Texas. Nearly half said they were "unable to access the birth control that they wanted to use" in the three months before they became pregnant. Among the reasons: cost, lack of insurance, inability to find a clinic, and inability get a prescription. The state's health commission says Texas will see nearly 24,000 unplanned births between 2014 and 2015 thanks to these cuts, raising state and federal taxpayer's Medicaid costs by up to $273 million.

Nearly half of the women said they couldn't access birth control in the three months before they got pregnant.

The Planned Parenthood clinics that anti-choice legislators booted from the state's Women's Health Program serviced nearly 50 percent of the program's patients. Along with contraceptive counseling, the clinics provided basic screenings for cancer, hypertension, and other key problems. There's no shortage of need: women in Texas suffer high rates of STIs and unintended pregnancies compared to national figures, and the state ranks 50th for diabetes prevalence in women. Nonetheless, Republican lawmakers went after the clinics in 2011, thanks to their long-standing beef with the organization, and forfeited tens of millions in Medicaid reimbursements to the Women's Health Program so they could defund Planned Parenthood clinics without breaking any federal rules governing how states have to spend Medicaid money.

Despite losing its highest-volume providers, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission insists the revamped, wholly state-run and state-funded Women's Health Program can reshuffle all the displaced patients and keep providing the same levels of care as before. But last October, researchers at George Washington University examined five Texas counties and found that in order to effectively replace Planned Parenthood, other clinics would need to increase their caseloads two to five times.

Congress considers banning weapons that have caused carnage in shopping malls, schools, and city streets.

The political fortunes of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 have looked dim from the start. But as Congress considers the new legislation put forth by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), one thing is clear: If it were to pass, the bill would outlaw highly lethal firearms that dozens of mass shooters in the United States have used to unleash carnage.

More than half of the killers we studied in our investigation of 62 mass shootings over the last three decades possessed weapons that would be banned by Feinstein's bill, including various semi-automatic rifles, guns with military features, and handguns using magazines with more than 10 rounds. The damage these weapons can cause has been on grim display since last summer, from Aurora to Milwaukee to Minneapolis to Newtown, where attacks carried out with them left a total of 118 people injured and dead.

"They got the most shots," said a Chicago teenager who prefers high-capacity magazines. "You can shoot forever."

The new legislation aims to outlaw weapons that let a shooter fire a large number of bullets quickly without having to reload. Law enforcement officials we consulted generally considered that to be a reasonable approach for distinguishing between firearms used for sport or self-defense and military-style weapons designed to maximize body counts.

Using the parameters of the new bill, we dove deeper into the data on mass shootings that we first began gathering in July after the slaughter at the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. We dug up additional specific details on the perpetrators' guns and ammunition devices (often elusive, particularly with older cases). In our initial analysis we had used broader criteria for "assault weapons," including some modified shotguns and bolt-action rifles; now, our more detailed chart and data set use four categories of firearms: semi-automatic handguns, rifles, revolvers, and shotguns. Across those four categories, we account for assault weapons and guns using high-capacity magazines that would be specifically outlawed by the new legislation. The data includes all guns recovered at the scene in each case, though not all of them were used in the crimes. Using this criteria we found:

A total of 48 of these weapons (accounting for the overlap between the two categories) would be illegal under the new legislation.*

Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 isn't just about mass shootings, of course. By far the most common weapons used in these cases are semi-automatic handguns—the type of weapon also at the heart of the daily gun violence plaguing American communities. Banning high-capacity magazines may be especially key with regard to these guns, not only because they're popular among mass shooters, but also because they tend to increase casualties in street violence, as a veteran ATF agent explained to us in a recent interview.

The devices have appeal on the streets. A Chicago high school student recently described his preference for 30-round magazines to a reporter for This American Life: "They got the most shots. You can shoot forever. Let out 15. Run back to where you going. Somebody else come out and let out five more. There you go."

Despite persistingconcernsover genetically modified crops, a new industry report (PDF) shows that GMO farming is taking off around the world. In 2012, GMO crops grew on about 420 million acres of land in 28 countries worldwide, a record high according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, an industry trade group.

If all the world's GMO crop fields in 2012 were sown together, it would blanket almost all of Alaska. As the chart from the report shows, globally GMO farming has been on an uninterrupted upward trend. What's especially noteworthy is the growth of GMO farming area in developing nations (see red line), which surpassed that in industrial nations for the first time in 2012. The ISAAA's report doesn't project into the future, but we may see this upward trend continue as "a considerable quantity and variety" of GMO products may be commercialized in developing countries within the next five years, according to a recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation forum (PDF).

The ISAAA says the area of land devoted to genetically modified crops has ballooned by 100 times since farmers first started growing the crop commercially in 1996. Over the past 17 years, millions of farmers in 28 countries have planted and replanted GMO crop seeds on a cumulative 3.7 billion acres of land—an area 50 percent larger than the total land mass of the United States, the group adds.

What kinds of benefits? According to the ISAAA, GMO farming has reduced use of pesticides, saved on fossil fuels, decreased carbon dioxide emissions, and "made a significant contribution to the income of < 15 million small resource-poor farmers" in developing countries. These small-scale farmers now make up over 90 percent of all farmers growing GMO crops, the group states.

But just looking at the United States—consistently the biggest GMO crop producer in the world by a long shot—there is much reason to doubt on some of ISAAA's claimed benefits. (More after the chart.)

On Monday, an American cybersecurity firm called Mandiant released a report accusing the Chinese government of systematically hacking into American computer networks and targeting state secrets, weapons programs, businesses, and even the nation's gas pipelines. The New York Times vetted the story and concluded that a growing body of evidence "leaves little doubt" that these attacks are originating from a secret Chinese army base. Adam Segal, senior fellow for China studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (an organization that, in the past, has also been targeted by hackers that appeared to be China-based), tells Mother Jones that this "raises the pressure on the increasing drum beat on the US to do something."

So just how freaked out do you need to be? Here's everything you need to know:

How do cyberattacks and cyberwarfare work? A cyberattack is what happens when a hacker penetrates computers or networks for the purpose of maliciously exploiting systems and information. This can lead to identity theft, viruses, theft of intellectual property, or full-on system infiltration (i.e., the hacker can watch your every move). Cyberwarfare is what happens when countries are the ones employing those hackers, often with the goal of stealing state secrets and/or causing damage.

The scheme that Chinese hackers employ to gain footholds on victims' computers is known in computer-speak as spear phishing, according to Mandiant, and it's a scam that's been around for years. The sabotage begins when a victim receives an innocuous work-related email about a meeting or a project from what appears to be a colleague's email address. If the target takes the bait, he or she will click on a hyperlink or download an attachment from the message. In some cases, suspicious recipients have responded to phishing emails with questions about the file's authenticity. The Chinese hackers have responded: "It's legit." When the target downloads the files, they'll be unwittingly installing remote-access software (sometimes referred to as a "backdoor") that allows the hacker to assume control of the victim's computer.

With a few lines of code, the hacker can install other backdoors and programs, upload and download files, capture screenshots of the user’s desktop, record keystrokes and passwords, and shut down the system. The sleuthing can last months or even years, and confidential and top-secret files can be easily transported from the network into the hacker's hands. Here's a video showing an attack in progress:

So what is this mysterious Unit 61398? Unit 61398 (or "61398部队"​ for the Mandarin speakers among you) is believed to be a top-secret unit of the Chinese government that "engages in harmful 'Computer Network Operations,'" according to the Mandiant report. It's located in a 12-story facility in Shanghai, and could have up to thousands of employees, most of whom are required to speak English, demonstrate computer security skills, and exhibit "team spirit." Richard Bejtlich, the chief security officer at Mandiant, tells Mother Jones that the unit built new headquarters in 2007. Mandiant claims to have known about the unit for seven years, but it's unclear exactly how long it has been around. D.B. Grady, a national security journalist and author, makes the case that "concerns over Unit 61398—a perfectly unnerving name—are no more worrisome than Chinese spies recruiting American agents to steal folders from locked filing cabinets." He adds, "If the US government were really alarmed, we would be threatening to go to war. Instead, we're threatening to give a lot of money to government contractors."

Nevertheless, here are some infographics showing just how effective Unit 61398 is at getting on your computer, and staying there:

​Who is the Chinese government hacking?The short answer: Your business, your water supply, your defense, your newspapers, and probably more. The longer answer: Since 2006, China's espionage division has stolen data from at least 115 American businesses—and that's only the hacking that Mandiant directly observed. The company believes that number represents only a small fraction of the China's overall hacking activity. Not surprisingly, Chinese spies were most interested in hacking national-security-related industries such as aerospace, energy, scientific research and information technology. Here's a chart showing the most-targeted industries (it only includes attacks Mandiant witnessed, and includes some that occurred outside the United States):

Mandiant

But even if you work for an alfalfa farm in Wyoming, hacking could still affect you: According to the New York Times, the hackers are interested in US critical infrastructure—electric grids, oil pipelines and water systems—and are attempting to unlock US military secrets by targeting defense contractors and weapons program (more on that later). Chinese hackers are also taking on media giants that produce journalism critical of China: the Times' computers were compromised recently after a high-profile investigation revealed that members of Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao’s family had accumulated massive wealth from state contracts, and the Washington Post, Bloomberg News and the Wall Street Journal have also all been targeted. (Mother Jones liability note: China is great! 我们爱中国!)

Why is China hacking the United States?Segal, the Council on Foreign Relations expert, explains:

The Chinese want to move up the value chain. They want to move from "made in" to "innovated in China." So part of it is stealing industrial secrets and helping Chinese companies. There's [also] political and military espionage—having a better sense of what the US government and US opinion leaders and other people think about China and try to influence that, and wanting to steal US military secrets. It's also a kind of deterrent. [It] sends a message to the US that the US homeland is vulnerable and if there was going to be a regional conflict that escalated, the US should know that the Chinese have a way of reaching out and touching us.

Another explanation? Chinese hackers just really wanted to access their social-media accounts, many of which are blocked on the mainland. Mandiant was able to trace some of the hackers' identities because the "easiest way for them to log into Facebook and Twitter [was] directly from their attack infrastructure." And as our colleague Josh Harkinson noted, at least one hacker appears to be "a fan of American and British pop culture"—he used Harry Potter references for his passwords.

So…just how screwed are we? Both private US companies and government infrastructure are pretty bad at stopping hackers from beating down the door. Most private companies "aren't in a position to defend themselves, and if you devote any length of time to break into one of these guys, you're going to find a way in," says Mandiant's Bejtlich.

When it comes to government, the forecast isn't much better: President Obama says that the "cyberthreat is one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation." Between 2007 and 2009, the head of the Pentagon's Cyber Crime Center confirmed 102 instances in which hackers had infiltrated the networks of government agencies, military contractors, or other entities connected to the Department of Defense, according to a 2010 Forbes report. In 2007, the 10 largest defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and Boeing, all suffered security breaches that traced back to China. CFR's Segal says that even though cyber attacks aren't new, "on the defense side, we haven't had too much success" defending against them.

But experts don't necessarily say that means the United States is screwed. Segal says that US-China relations would have to "already be very, very bad or very, very close to military conflict anyway for the Chinese to consider a cyberattack." He adds that "there is some vulnerability to the power grid and industrial sector, but it's not a major threat right now. The major threat is espionage and stealing secrets."

"The way cybersecurity works is the way security works in the real world," Bejtlich says. "It's based on fast detection and response. It's hard to stop someone from breaking into your house, but you can call the police and kick them out." He adds that "defense contractors also learn from their experiences, and the ones who are making the news more tend to do the best job of protecting information that I've seen."

Grady makes the case that many of the cybersecurity concerns are overblown, and are instead, simply a good way for the defense industry to squeeze more money out of taxpayers. "This isn't some kind of new horror. Cyberattacks will become worrisome when someone figures out how to use a copy of Linux to blow up something," he tells Mother Jones. "The motives of defense contractors are pretty obvious, aren't they?" he adds. "The war on terror is all but over, but cybersecurity could mean anything and everything. Where there's fear, there's a lot of money to be made."

What is the Obama administration doing? Last week, Obama issued an executive order on cybersecurity with the aim of protecting US critical infrastructure from hackers, despite pushback from conservatives and big business. The order requests that companies participate in a voluntary information-sharing program so the government can help them stop attacks. "It's not clear that the executive order is going to make it better," Segal says. According to Bejtlich, the administration "is doing as much as it can with the order, but now the focus needs to shift to the House and the Senate."

Who else is China attacking? Wait, are we attacking anyone? Check out this amazing chart by Foreign Affairs, showing the number of cyber attacks, and by whom, from 2001 to 2011 (click link for the full chart):

SC Magazine reports that hackers (of unconfirmed origin) are now using phishing emails that claim to include the Mandiant cybersecurity report, in order to gain access to victims. The phishing emails are reportedly targeting Japanese companies and Chinese journalists. Here's a screenshot of one of the fake emails, released by Symantec:

And here's a tweet from Malware Lab claiming that some of the victims may be Chinese journalists: